I went to the dentist today. He didn't even bring up cleaning, which would be akin to sales training at Circuit City.
After he finished with me I heard him call his wife and tell her to order the Mercedes.
How do I dispose of a 36" x 36" mirror? I can't see myself just tossing it in the trash.
(OK, your turn.)
I put the first coat of paint on the bathroom Pam uses. She picked the color scheme. Nobody will fall asleep in that room!
You've seen the picture of the US Airways pilot who put the plane down safely in the Hudson River? He's 57 years old. He also has two early-teen daughters, which explains it.
I say we send the bill to Canada. It was their geese.
No meal which includes the phrase, "Remove plastic film from over dessert" can be considered dining. I'm not sure it can be considered eating. But given the choice of that or Hungry, I'll be a Man.
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of murder in the deaths of two people, a mother and her unborn baby. Do you notice anything strange about that ruling in a country which, on January 22, 1973, legalized abortions at any point in a woman's pregnancy?
The American taxpayer is now the majority shareholder in Bank of America. Shouldn't we be getting a discount on re-fi's?
"Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset."
That quote comes from Matthew Parris, a British atheist. He went on to talk about "the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa.... In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."
(See the current issue of World Magazine where I read this quote.)
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was the first to refer to it as "the miracle on the Hudson," but the media quickly picked up on that expression. Politicians and the press both like a catchy turn of phrase. It doesn't have to mean anything, communicate any real sense. Like "Change you can believe in" it needs to be short and evocative of something positive if you're a politician, or dramatic if you're in the news business. So parsing the phrase too closely probably doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think "miracle on the Hudson" deserves a closer look.
A miracle is, by definition, a supernatural event, something outside the laws of nature, that is the direct work of God. The safe landing of that Aerobus in the Hudson River thus fails to meet the criteria as a miracle; it was not outside the laws of nature. A very skilled pilot used all of his abilities and training to put that plane down in the precise manner necessary to keep it from sinking. The Aerobus is equipped with a "Ditch Switch" which allows the pilot to seal all the ducts in and out of the cabin to make it airtight in the event of a water crash landing. Because the plane hit the river where it did, and not two miles up or down stream, there were a number of ferrys less than two minutes away, instead of the 10 to 20 minutes it would have been otherwise.
Which is to say that a sovereign and gracious God who works out everything in conformity with his will (Eph. 1:11) had his great hand in all of this. I don't know if they intend to play homage to God when they call it the miracle on the Hudson, but if so they're correct. God is responsible for the fact no souls were lost in that event.
But God's involvement doesn't make it a miracle. No part of what happened, from the cause to the landing to the subsequent rescue of all aboard, involved events outside the laws of nature.
Does that make any difference? So what if we use the word miracle, so long as we understand the events were of God's direction? Because doing so diminishes the word, makes it mean less than it is.
Any reading of the Bible shows that miracles are exceedingly rare, done by God at extraordinary times for extraordinary resaons. Find a miracle and you'll find an event with significance far beyond the circumstances involved. The first category of miracles involve signs, miracles done to accredit the servant of God, occuring at a critical juncture of his ministry. See Ex. 4:1-9 as the first occurrence of this category, the archetype.
The second category involves God working out his plan of salvation. From the earliest periods of human history God has occasionally seen fit to work outside the laws of nature to insure that redemption's plan is fullfilled.
The former category, miracles done to accredit God's servant, were designed to fulfill Israel's unique need. See I Cor 1:22. As such they are no longer a part of God's work in the world (again, 1 Cor. 1:22 and other key NT passages). The first stage of the redemptive plan was completed with the miracle of the resurrection. The final stage, the consumation, will involve the miracle of the Rapture.
As wonderful as the outcomes of that crash were, and as much as they testify to God's grace, nothing about that event qualifies as a miracle. Using that very narrow word in this context robs the term miracle of its power and significance. I realize even most Christians aren't interested in this kind of precision, but for the sake of elevating God's plan of redemption to its rightful place as the centerpiece of human history I'm going to argue for preserving the very narrow meaning of the word miracle.
FWIW
No comments:
Post a Comment